Atheists ???

Question

Okay, question: Why do you believe there is no "higher power"? How could the earth, let me change that, the Universe could be created out of nothingness. I myself being Christian also believes that there are holes in every religion , but let me refer to the big bang theory ... How could those several particles have created the Universe if nothing was to create them ...? I do believe that the theory of evolution is probable, because of coarse life will evolve when exposed to new environments. But science is not my religion, so please explain why you are not at least agnostic when you can't prove that there is not a god?

This question isn't about my beliefs, I want to know why some of you conclude to believe there is no god. And who ever made that statement about aliens and Zeus etc ... This is the definition of god- "the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe". So if an alien did create everything he indeed would be a god. Oh and fyi Zeus is a god in greek mythology, so why mention him?

Actually Siar Santa was a real person, St. Nicholas, but I get what you mean.

Oh and I realize god cannot be proven, but anything that exists has to have a creator. Nothing can occur on its own.

I never said that the only god is a Christian god.

Answer 1

Zach, I'm an agnostic, not an atheist, so I can't really answer your question as stated. I did want to tell you however that yours is one of the most reasonable and fair question I have read on here, from a Christian, for a long time. You didn't tell people "you're an idiot if you don't believe what I do" or really judge them in any way. Your question reflects an open mind and an honest spirit and I commend you for that.

If you'd like an agnostic's take on your question, I do not believe in God simply because there is no empirical evidence to demonstrate His existence. He doesn't make Himself available to the five senses of the average man (though some say they literally "hear Him speak," that is not evidence of God's existence). I'm not demeaning anyone's belief, just making the point that someone else's experiences, which may be imaginary or falsified, do not constitute evidence.

Like you said, I am agnostic because as impossible as it is to prove the existence of God, it is just as impossible to disprove it. There is just no definitive evidence either way so I believe that atheism is as unreasonable and illogical as belief in an undetectable supreme being.

Good question!

Answer 2

Atheists don't believe in supernatural creatures because there is no evidence compelling them to believe. The personal inability to explain something is no reason to simply believe whatever people are telling you. (Can't explain it? It must be magic.) This is a logical fallacy called the argument from ignorance. It can be employed in a number of different ways. Want some examples?

The Big Bang is a theory based on empirical evidence. It was hypothesized based on what was observed and is subject to modification according to available data and new developments. Unlike some other theories (i.e. intelligent design and creationism) it is flexible and bends to the evidence at hand. It is not dogmatic and that is why science is not a religion.

Most people who call themselves atheists are really agnostics. God can't be disproved because, at not fault of the atheist, the concept of a supernatural being is unfalsifiable. However, given a complete lack of evidence supporting its existence as well as plenty of compelling reasons to suggest the god thing just isn't real, many agnostics are quite comfortable assuming that a god doesn't exist. These are the people who call themselves atheists.

Answer 3

"Oh and I realize god cannot be proven, but anything that exists has to have a creator. Nothing can occur on its own."

Then you do realize that you don't even follow your own premise. If everything needs a creator, then who created god. And if your answer is god doesn't need to be created then I say why does the universe need to be created. By adding god to the equation you are creating more holes in the argument. Cut the middle man out and go with the more simple explanation.

Answer 4

The "Big Band Theory" is actually a religious theory proposed by a Belgian Catholic (Jesuit) Monk (George Lemaitre, 1927) to allow a place for God to do his creating thing. It is generally called a theory, but in truth it is just the best of several working hypotheses. It fits the theories and the data quite well but in itself it has made no testable predictions. NASA only recently removed their page explaining the distinction. It was too confusing to the general public who tend to believe it to be both a theory and a fact..
If you want the theories then you are looking at stuff like Hubble expansion, which offers an explanation of observed data and also provided the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

Big Bang is an extrapolation of the theories to a beginning. It has no observations or any other method of testing it.

Answer 5

Okay then, let's assume that there's a god who created the universe. What did he create it out of? And while we're at it, who created god? We're back to the same scenario of something coming from nothing.
I don't believe in a higher power because there's no evidence to indicate that there is one. Let alone the specific Christian higher power.
The term "agnostic" is a cop-out. Either you believe in a god or gods or you don't. Atheism ISN'T the belief that there is no god, it's the LACK of belief that there is one. That's an important distinction.

Answer 6

well i AM agnostic about a "higher power", whatever that might mean. also i am atheist since i don't believe there is a god as it is commonly understood. i am a naturalist and i think that god if it exists is natural and could be studied by (some advanced future) science. why do you equate a "higher power" with the christian god? seems like there are thousands of gods you could just as well believe in. my point here is that your choice to believe in the christian god is at least as arbitrary, given the available evidence, as is the choice to believe in no gods at all.

"anything that exists has to have a creator"

how do you KNOW that? this is simply a dogmatic assertion as far as i can tell.

Answer 7

OK. First we'll deal with the "god" issue, then the science issue.

Here's why I don't believe in God. First, you have to define the term "God." The problem with most theists is that this term is a moving target.

In addition, because there is no evidence either for or against the existence of God, you cannot use deductive logic (a+b=c; therefore c-b=a). You can only reach a conclusion by inductive reasoning using the balance of evidence (90% of A is also B; C is B, so the chances are 90% that C is also A).

So to begin with, I will assert (and others may shoot this down) that the only RELEVANT definition of God states that GOD INTERVENES TO CIRCUMVENT NATURAL LAWS.

If God circumvents natural laws, then it becomes impossible to understand natural laws. All scientific findings would have to include the stipulation, "It is also possible that these results are an act of God, a miracle, thereby making our research meaningless."

However, we have been able to expand our knowledge of natural laws (evidenced by every appliance in your kitchen). Therefore, because the scientific method leads to applicable discoveries, and the likely conclusion is that God, at least the intervening kind, does not exist.

Additionally, if God is defined as all loving, all powerful, and all knowing, then it is impossible to explain suffering. Either God is not all loving (he acts sadistically), not all powerful (he cannot prevent suffering), or not all knowing (he created suffering by mistake because he didn't know the consequences of his actions). A God who is not all-loving, all-powerful or all-knowing is also not sufficient for the definition of God, because any God that fails to meet these criteria becomes bound by rules that are greater than God.

If God is bound by external rules and/or does not intervene in our existence, then God is either non-existent or irrelevant. The classic Bertrand Russell argument is that I cannot prove that a china teapot is orbiting the sun between the earth's orbit and Mars. But while I cannot prove this is not true, the evidence against it is compelling.

The evidence against God is equally compelling, and while it is not possible to prove beyond any doubt, it makes enormously more sense to live your life as if there were no God.

It is more compelling to me that humans have invented God (a) to help people deal with the pain and fear associated with death and loss, and (b) to reflect the thoughts of the ruling powers in a particular time. Humans are always searching for explanations. When none were found, it was the natural inclination to declare that the cause of the unexplained was "God" (or gods). As the faith grew, miracles (coincidences) and laws were ascribed to this Divinity, and an orthodoxy grew up around it.

Now it seems unhelpful to believe in such superstition. The only matters that aid in our ongoing well-being are work, location, health, sustenance, and pure, blind luck.

So that's why I don't believe God exists.

Now, regarding your scientific assertions, 150 years ago, we didn't know about bacteria. No clue. It wasn't understood until Louis Pasteur determined that germs caused disease.

You are asking the same questions that scientists ask. Thankfully, science is a self-correcting field that expands knowledge as is goes along (see the Pasteur reference above).

You have, however, asked this in the Religion & Spirituality section, where we are mostly humanities majors, not biologists or physicists. Would you come to R&S to find out what opus number was Mozart's 40th Symphony? I think not. You're asking us to play to our weakness. Quite frankly, you're being unfair.

So let me suggest two things:

1. If you are serious about wanting to know the current evidence-based understanding on the origins of the universe and on evolutionary theory, there are excellent descriptions found at http://www.talkorigins.org .

2. Consider that you are proposing (not so subtly) that anything that is not explained is a place for God to be discovered. This is commonly referred to in ontology as "the god of the gaps" theory. It typically assigns God to any blank space that science has not yet reached useful conclusions. Remember what I said about disease? Before bacteria were discovered, it was assumed God was punishing the ill, or that they were demon possessed, or some other supernatural phenomenon caused sickness. This is the same god of the gaps.

Science never assumes, and should never assume, anything is supernatural. The assertion that God acted to create or modify something explains absolutely nothing. The purpose of science is to discover through measured observation, testing, and repetition what natural causes lead to our natural world. If you impose a statement "God caused it," then this stops the search for knowledge, because God is ultimately unknowable. This is the reason that the "god of the gaps" theory is discounted among learned ontological academicians, and is ignored by science.

- {♂♂} - {♂♀} - {♀♀} -

EDIT:
You clearly haven't been around here much, but the obvious rejoinder to "everything that exists must have a creator" is::
WHO, THEN, CREATED GOD?

If you have trouble imagining that there is an ever existing universe that goes through various configurations, how can you possibly then find the eternal possible in the supernatural, when clearly that idea, too, is a human invention?

You may still believe in a creator God if you study physics, but your questions and dilemmas will take on a greater beauty & sophistication born out of understanding. I don't pretend to understand enough to teach it. I, too, am a student of the universe, but at least I am trying to learn something rather than pretend that by saying "God did it," I have explained anything at all.

- {♂♂} - {♂♀} - {♀♀} -

Answer 8

Higher powers indicate that one person believes in a supernatural force that controls or influences you or people around you, the earth, and everything in it. Atheists do not believe in any gods; science is believed to have helped to create the universe. And no one really knows what went on in the universe before the Big Bang. Now, atheists are different from agnostics, because although they can't prove there is no God, they don't even believe in Him to begin with. So, as deductive reasoning says, if you don't believe, then there is no God. (Agnostics are undecided, not non-believers.)

Answer 9

The 'Big Bang' theory became accepted because the universe is expanding outwards and is filled with a residual energy from the explosion. What happened before the Big Bang nobody can say for sure, as they'll freely admit. The theory does not disprove the existence of God although I personally do not believe.

Btw, I got a bit of a shock when I saw your avatar. Does it really look like you, because mine looks more like me than I do.

Answer 10

It wasn't. It probably emerged from a singularity formed in the collapse of a previous universe, as the latest math suggests. Science is not a religion. Religions require faith, and science has facts and evidence. If you think science is a religion, do you pray before trying to turn the lights on each day? Or the computer? Or your microwave or cell phone? Or do you just assume that scientists knew what they were doing and it's going to work whether you pray or not? That's reality for you.